Connect with us

Published

on

Since their inception more than 30 years ago, carbon offsets have given false comfort to those seeking easy solutions to the climate crisis.

Encouraging one party to continue pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, while paying another to do the opposite has been a giant diversion: side-tracking us from decarbonising our economies and lives.

One scandal after another has engulfed carbon offset schemes. Their credibility has eroded as evidence has mounted that offset projects fail to deliver the climate gains that they promise.

An investigation earlier this year found that 90% of the rainforest protection schemes approved by the world’s largest carbon offsets standards agency, Verra, were “worthless” from a climate perspective. This point was reinforced by a new study from UC Berkeley, which found that the companies had greatly overstated the emissions their projects saved.

Inherently flawed

Another study investigating the largest forest offsetting schemes by companies, governments and the World Bank reached the same conclusion: all had inflated their impact.

The real problem with carbon offsetting schemes, however, lies less with their execution than with their inherent flaws.

This is especially true of land-based offsetting – where polluters claim the effects of their fossil fuel emissions have been neutralised because they’ve paid for trees to be planted, improved farming methods, or temporarily locked carbon into the land by another means.

Exposed: carbon offsets linked to high forest loss still on sale

These schemes are predicated on the promise of sucking vast amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere in the future: a future laden with variables and uncertainties. By contrast, every ton of emissions released now will certainly contribute to the floods, heat waves, wildfires and other climate-fuelled chaos unfolding across the planet.

From global leader to global wrecking ball?

Yet just as the evidence is hardening around land-based offsets’ fundamental flaws, the European Union (EU) could be on the cusp of agreeing a law that would bolster the market. This would signal a serious reversal of the EU’s status as a global climate leader.

EU countries hammer out joint stance for Cop28 climate summit

The EU chose to exclude forest offsets from its Emissions Trading System (ETS), because of concerns about the problems plaguing the voluntary carbon offset market – that projects could be manipulated to overstate their climate impact.

Now, with potentially disastrous consequences, conservative EU lawmakers are paving the way to reverse this.

Their proposed EU Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF), aimed at establishing new standards for calculating carbon dioxide removals from forests, farms, or yet-to-be developed projects for industrial carbon capture, will also include forest offsets.

Cooking the books: cookstove offsets produce millions of fake emission cuts

The CRCF would encourage private, self-regulating agencies like Verra to create tradable carbon credits based on agreed standards, allowing the use of carbon removals to offset ongoing emissions by the entities that buy the credits, rather than ensuring companies are obligated to both reduce their emissions and pay for activities that remove carbon.

This dangerous proposal, which is currently before the European Parliament, would reward offsetters with an EU stamp of approval. It would also create the false impression that the use of tradable carbon credits, developed under new EU rules and misleadingly described as “carbon removals”, will result in lower total emissions.

The opposite is more likely to occur.

A stark choice

Like other speculative markets, from crypto currencies to derivatives, the carbon offset market is plagued by cycles of boom and bust. It is currently in a swoon. As the risks of being held liable for false claims have risen, many companies have stopped buying. The price for land-based carbon credits has fallen tenfold since the start of 2022.

Those championing land-based carbon offsetting as a climate solution are trying to resuscitate the carbon offset market. A major reason, as a new report co-authored by Kathleen McAfee asserts, is that carbon trading has become a self-perpetuating industry rife with conflicts of interest and a bias for producing success stories.

In their quest to revive their industry, the carbon marketeers seem to have found powerful allies among a sizeable number of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs).

This week, the European Parliament’s Environment Committee will vote on the CRCF. If MEPs are serious about tackling the climate emergency, then they must call for the EU to ban the sale of carbon credits which would enable climate action to be delayed.

As the world has just endured the hottest July, August and September on record, it is clear that the EU faces a stark choice. It can either give a false climate solution a new lease of life – or face up to the reality that offsets simply don’t work.

Dr Kate Dooley is a Research Fellow in the School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Melbourne. Dr Kathleen McAfee is Professor Emerita in International Relations at San Francisco State University.

The post The EU is about to revive a failed climate solution appeared first on Climate Home News.

The EU is about to revive a failed climate solution

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs

Published

on

Three countries have been named by the Paris Agreement’s compliance committee for failing to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and repeatedly snubbing offers of help with their climate plans.

After months of internal debate over whether to identify serial non-responders, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) named the three countries which have failed to engage with it over their NDCs on Friday.

It named Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal and North Korea in a footnote of its annual report, adding that it decided to name them “with a view to facilitating engagement”, adding that representatives of the three nations had been invited to its meeting in early 2027 “with the purpose of identifying any challenges and constraints”.

“The Committee noted the importance of Parties engaging with the Committee in a timely manner, while noting that some delays may be due to the national capabilities and circumstances of the Parties”, the report said.

    In July, PAICC said 12 countries had ignored its repeated attempts to discuss why they had not published an NDC as required every five years under the 2015 Paris accord.

    Members of the committee had been divided over whether to name them, but at a September meeting decided to do so in their annual report to the annual climate COP summit.

    By the time the report was published on Friday, only Congo, Senegal and North Korea “had not communicated an NDC or submitted a [Biennial Transparency Report] and had not yet responded to any of the Committee’s notifications, despite several reminders issued by the Committee in this regard”.

    Rainforest and renewable energy ambitions

    The silence from Congo and Senegal is notable because the former is home to much of the Congo Basin rainforest while the latter has sought billions of dollars in climate finance to support its renewable energy ambitions.

    After Brazil, Congo has more rainforest than any country in the world. This forest, and the country’s peatlands, absorb huge amounts of greenhouse gas but are fast being lost to expanding farmland, charcoal production, logging and mining.

    Senegal signed a Just Energy Transition Partnership with Canada and wealthy European nations in 2023, to help it meet its renewable energy targets under the-then government of Macky Sall. It was chair of the Least Developed Countries group between January 2022 and December 2023.

    Greenpeace campaigner Raoul Monsembula in the peatland forest around Mbandaka, Democratic Republic of Congo, on September 15, 2017 (Daniel Beltra/Greenpeace)

    Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University, said the governments of the three countries should engage with the committee.

    “Engagement costs these governments very little and the committee has shown it will listen,” he said.

    “Silence leaves the committee with no basis to help, and it leaves the [governments] exposed to the narrative that they are simply disengaged,” he told Climate Home News.

    Paris Agreement requirement

    The 2015 Paris Agreement requires all parties to publish an NDC every five years outlining their emissions reduction targets, with each plan meant to be more ambitious than the country’s last NDC.

    The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in February 2025. While most countries missed this deadline, all but around 30 – mostly small emitters but including Egypt, Vietnam and Argentina – have now submitted them.

    Over the year, the PAICC – which is made up of government climate officials from developed and developing countries – has been communicating with governments that have not submitted NDCs and trying to overcome barriers to them doing so.

    Some nations have cited exceptional circumstances as the reason for not submitting an NDC, a process that requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC, seen by Climate Home News, said that the country’s civil war had led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.

      The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement and so do not have active NDCs, nor does Taiwan, which is not a UN member state.

      Rao said that because the PAICC is “facilitative and non-punitive”, naming the countries “is meant to open a door, not close one – the invited consultation is the point”.

      “In recent months, governments that explained their constraints, whether capacity, finance or domestic process, have been met with follow-up and support rather than sanction, and the number of silent governments has fallen sharply,” Rao said.

      The post Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs appeared first on Climate Home News.

      Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      Q&A: Why a pivotal IPCC meeting in Ethiopia ended in ‘profound disappointment’

      Published

      on

      Article Contents

      Countries have failed – for the sixth time running – to agree on the timeline for publishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) next set of influential reports.

      The IPCC’s 65th session (IPCC-65) was seen by many to be the final opportunity for countries to agree on a schedule where its seventh assessment report (AR7) would be published in time for the UN’s second “global stocktake” of climate action.

      Before last week’s meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, IPCC chair Prof Sir Jim Skea had warned that releasing the reports in time for the stocktake in 2028 would depend on a timelines being agreed by the end of 2026.

      But the week-long meeting descended into fraught disagreements between governments, resulting in Skea “suspending” the talks on Friday evening with no decision made.

      Countries were also unable to agree on the IPCC’s budget for the rest of the AR7 cycle, leaving the body with a “serious funding crisis”.

      The IPCC has pledged to reconvene the meeting at the “earliest opportunity”; however, it has not yet given an indication of when this will be.

      In his concluding remarks, Skea described the Addis Ababa summit as a “profound disappointment” and “among the most difficult IPCC meetings”, according to reporting from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB).

      Some countries have reacted with dismay to the breakdown of negotiations, warning that a failure to have the IPCC’s latest assessments on climate adaptation and mitigation ready for the UN stocktaking exercise would undermine global climate action.

      A climate envoy from a Pacific island state said it was a “travesty that a handful of countries continue to delay the IPCC’s reports – the science we need back home to help us save lives and livelihoods”.

      Below, Carbon Brief explores the key developments, debates and disagreements at the IPCC meeting.